> I don't think quality, or, for that matter, political choices (as in your example), are that simple to judge. Of course not. Every judgement is ultimately a

> I don't think quality, or, for that matter, political choices (as in your example), are that simple to judge. Of course not. Every judgement is ultimately a failed attempt at omnipotence. But we try anyways, and there is such thing as progress. We can get closer, especially relative to each-other. There's a great joke that the only probabilities humans believe in are 0%, 100%, and 50%. Basically anything that isn't certain is likely going to be treated like 50% by most people. It seems to be central in "equality of opinions," or "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." To summarize, I think the following is a fun reductio-ad-absurdum argument, but ultimately not true: "There is no 100% accurate way of measuring quality, therefor all means of measurement are equally meaningless." If it was true, there would be no point in symbols or abstractions of any sort.